Is Bush trying to elect Democrats to Congress?

[CARLHAYDEN]

While George W. Bush demonstrated remarkable political skills prior to 2005, since inauguration to his second term he has gone out of his way to consistently mess up.

First, he devoted most of the first half of 2005 social security reform (a non-starters).

Second, in the latter half of 2005 he tried nominating the head of the White House Legal Counsel for a Supreme Court nomination despite her lack of creditials for such an office, based largely on the fact that "she's a woman."

Third, despite considerable urging Bush failed to push an energy policy (I think most of the readers can see the result when they go to the gas pump of this failure).

Fourth, Bush has been an abject failure on the issue of illegal immigration.  On this issue, there is no other way to describe Bush's statements than to note he lies, and lies, and lies.  He has repeatedly failed to enforce existing laws.  He has opposed expending efforts to reduce illegal immigration. He favors amnesty for illegal aliens and the lies about it ,

Right now, the Republican base is very angry with Bush.  If Bush continues attacking the Republican base, many Republicans will not vote in 2006.

[WalterMitty]

i strongly support bush on immigration, though he doesnt go far enough.

i also support his social security reform, which also doesnt go far enough.

i wouldnt mind seeing a democrat takeover of the house, since house republicans want to label hard working immigrants as criminals.

[Nym90]

I definitely don't think that Bush is trying to elect Democrats to Congress, but it most certainly is true that he has made a number of strategic blunders in his second term. Of course, historically, second terms of Presidents have usually not gone as well as their first terms, so perhaps this should not be a surprise.

The failure to push an energy policy and the willingness to keep the illegal immigration pipeline flowing are both in my opinion because both are in the interests of big business. The oil companies certainly don't want the price of gas to come down, and companies of all stripes definitely want a large supply of workers available who are williing to work for substandard wages and who are powerless to do anything about it legally.

Viewed through this prism, many of Bush's otherwise difficult to understand decisions start to make a lot more sense.

But you definitely raise some good points, Carl.

[MODU]

Social Security - Right call by Bush.  Unfortunately, each year that Congress lets the issue slide, they screw over the nation.

Harriett - Yup, wrong call, but he corrected it smartly with a great man.

Energy policy - ummm, nope.  Another Congress screw up.  Bush was right in 2001 to start the push for advanced hydrogen research and development.  Not bad for a "oil man."

Illegal immigration - Again, wrong.  Bush was out front in 2002, 4 years before everyone caught up with him.  And no, his guest worker programs are not amnesty.  What Congress was trying to negotiate was.

I wish people would start putting the true blame where it belongs:  Congress.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Haha, a "Democrat" complaining about Bush's actions helping Democrats.

What a riot.

[opebo]

Social Security - Right call by Bush.  Unfortunately, each year that Congress lets the issue slide, they screw over the nation.

No, the problem can simply be solved by eliminating the income limit on the SS tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

[MODU]

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

If they had over 60%, then you would be right.  However, they are barely over 50%.

[opebo]

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

If they had over 60%, then you would be right.  However, they are barely over 50%.

Haha, you think the Democrats are in control of congress!

[John Dibble]

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

If they had over 60%, then you would be right.  However, they are barely over 50%.

Haha, you think the Democrats are in control of congress!

No, I believe he's asserting that the Republicans' margin of control isn't great enough that the Democrats, in a much more united front, could not win on more issues more of the time because there are more moderate Republicans that might side with them on some issues. The Dems certailny aren't in control, but they have influence. Since the Dems are too meek to do what it takes to exert any degree of control, the blame lies with them as well.

[opebo]

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

If they had over 60%, then you would be right.  However, they are barely over 50%.

Haha, you think the Democrats are in control of congress!

No, I believe he's asserting that the Republicans' margin of control isn't great enough that the Democrats, in a much more united front, could not win on more issues more of the time because there are more moderate Republicans that might side with them on some issues. The Dems certailny aren't in control, but they have influence. Since the Dems are too meek to do what it takes to exert any degree of control, the blame lies with them as well.

Nah, they have very little influence.  There are far more DINOs than there are 'moderate' Republicans.

[John Dibble]

That is still placing the blame squarely upon the Religious Party, MODO.

If they had over 60%, then you would be right.  However, they are barely over 50%.

Haha, you think the Democrats are in control of congress!

No, I believe he's asserting that the Republicans' margin of control isn't great enough that the Democrats, in a much more united front, could not win on more issues more of the time because there are more moderate Republicans that might side with them on some issues. The Dems certailny aren't in control, but they have influence. Since the Dems are too meek to do what it takes to exert any degree of control, the blame lies with them as well.

Nah, they have very little influence.  There are far more DINOs than there are 'moderate' Republicans.

And whose fault is that?

[Alcon]

Bush is losing support among his base, perhaps, but there are two things worth considering:

1. Polls still show his base supporting him, by and large, even if support has eroded.
2. These people are probably going to end up voting Republican anyway.

It's not to say that what Bush does does not affect the Congress.  However, if the Republicans lose the Congress, it will not be on Bush alone.

[minionofmidas]

Let's just hope they're not Carl Hayden democrats...

[WalterMitty]

Let's just hope they're not Carl Hayden democrats...

i wonder if carl voted for kerry?

i guess it wouldnt be that odd if he did.  i voted for bush (twice) and also contributed money to his campaign (twice)

[Virginian87]

i strongly support bush on immigration, though he doesnt go far enough.

Wait, you support having MORE illegals in this country?  That's the last thing we need right now.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Social Security - Right call by Bush.  Unfortunately, each year that Congress lets the issue slide, they screw over the nation.

Harriett - Yup, wrong call, but he corrected it smartly with a great man.

Energy policy - ummm, nope.  Another Congress screw up.  Bush was right in 2001 to start the push for advanced hydrogen research and development.  Not bad for a "oil man."

Illegal immigration - Again, wrong.  Bush was out front in 2002, 4 years before everyone caught up with him.  And no, his guest worker programs are not amnesty.  What Congress was trying to negotiate was.

I wish people would start putting the true blame where it belongs:  Congress.

Sorry, but I must disagree.

On energy policy there are a lot of things which should have been done, which Bush avoided (increasing refinery capacity, expanding domestic drilling and pumping from proven reserves, expansion of atomic energy for electricty production, but to name a few),

On illegal immigration, Bush has been patently dishonest.  He doesn't want his policy to be labeled 'amnesty,' but that is exactly what it is.  He has consistently opposed enforcement of immigration laws.  He did not hire border agents as authorized by Congress.  His political appointees have told Border Patrollment to look the other way when illegal immigrants are illegally crossing the border.  Bush's appointees have lied about the number of illegal border crossing (grossly understating the problem).

[ag]

Funny how Bush popularity has been falling in tandem with the improvement of my opinion of him.

[jerusalemcar5]

I personally believe we should have open borders.  They should have security, but immigration should be much easier.  The government should monitor the new immigrants, though, to stop exploitation.

[MODU]

Uhhhh . . .  ok?

[??????????]

I personally believe we should have open borders.  They should have security, but immigration should be much easier.  The government should monitor the new immigrants, though, to stop exploitation.

Are you insane? We don't need MORE leeches on the welfare state.

[opebo]

I personally believe we should have open borders.  They should have security, but immigration should be much easier.  The government should monitor the new immigrants, though, to stop exploitation.

Are you insane? We don't need MORE leeches on the welfare state.

There is no wefare state in the US, worker.  The leech you are supporting is your owner.

[ag]

I personally believe we should have open borders.  They should have security, but immigration should be much easier.  The government should monitor the new immigrants, though, to stop exploitation.

Are you insane? We don't need MORE leeches on the welfare state.

In that case, you don't object to foreigners, but to US citizens. Immigrants, legal or illegal, have been ineligible for whatever elements of the welfare state there are in the US since 1996. In fact, there isn't a group inside the US that collectively relies less on the government than the illegals. The canard that the illegals suck the juice out of the system is not based on fact - they pay in taxes many times the crumbs they manage to get out of it. I would love it if those localities that now scream about the feds "reimbursing" them for the costs of illegal immigration were taken up on their word: once all accounts are made, they should be paying the feds back the revenue that they'd never collect if there were no illegals (and, in comparion, what they spend on the illegals is small change).  Imagine the county supervisor explaining the voters: "now that the illegals no longer pay for the services they don't use we have to raise your taxes."  That would change the national mood, wouldn't it?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Ag, but you are simply incorrect.

Lets just take the cost of medical services rendered to illegals.  The cost has been so great that it has forced hospitals to close their emergency rooms (endangering thereby the life expectancy of citizens) because of the losses they suffered from caring for illegals.

Ag, you have bought into some really absurd liberal lies about illegal immigrants.

Let me give you another example, go to the nearest major city (population 100,000 or more) and request a copy of the police departments 'most wanted' list.  They note how many are illegal aliens.

Please tell the ranchers on the border who have have their buildings destroyed, they cattle killed by illegal immigrants just how much a benefit illegal immigration is.

[Citizen James]

Yes, yes he is